So the above AC gets modded 4 Insightful because he accuses anyone who has had a positive experience with Vista of working for MS. Then two people who have responded, basically rebutting his accusation, get modded Troll. Boy I love Slashdot. You guys are so unbiased.
Ok. Time for a question. So you've programmed a screen to mimic UAC. Good job. Now, to do any damage, your app must request elevation from Vista. Uh oh, guess what. Time for a REAL UAC prompt. Now what?
'Protected Media Path' (PMP), which is designed to seriously degrade the playback quality of any video and audio running on systems with hardware components not explicitly approved by Microsoft..
No. It doesn't. It does it for specific DRM content.
These restrictions only apply to DRM content, such as HD DVD or Blu-ray. User's standard unprotected content will not be faced with these restrictions.
This crap is getting lame. I'm seeing more and more unfounded "articles" on here because they have to make sure they get the stories Digg has. Newsflash folks. 99% of the articles on Digg are fanboy crap. This one is no different.
What's funny is there are already numerous comments here, but apparently NONE of those judging and commenting have actually tried what the article seems to be talking about. MSSQL Server 2000 and 2005 run *just fine* under Vista. There may be some minor compatibility problems and yes, the installer warns of these, but you can click right through that. Maybe some issues crop up if you tried to use it as a full fledged server solution as is, but for development purposed they work *just fine*.
Plus, this article is talking about MSSQL Server 2005 Express, which is the local, chopped up locked down version. The rest of the versions work just fine, plus there will be, soon enough, updates to increase the compatibility.
Please keep this kind of crap off Slashdot. It's fine to love OS and hate MS. But at least get your facts *sort of* straight. This is just way off the mark.
This MUST be a flame, but in case it isn't (and as an avid user of Delphi)...
The Kylix uses wine for certain parts of the Kylix IDE. CLX, the cross-platform component library found in Kylix and Delphi 6, *is* a wrapper for QT. Projects built in Kylix do *not* need wine to run. They are native executables that utilize QT for the UI.
And such would be one person's opinion. I, however, being a Delphi developer, and someone who has used Kylix, feel that one day's disruption of work (if that ever happened, which, as I've said before, has about a 0% chance *if* you are using the software legally) pales in comparison to the amount of development time that can be saved in using a RAD environment such as Kylix. I used Linux for several years, and, until Kylix came out, had yet to see an IDE that offered a RAD environment anywhere near the Windows offerings (Delphi, Visual Studio, etc). So while everyone else can spend hours and hours writing their GUI's by hand, I'll be content to use our legal copies of Delphi to design functional and elegant UI's in minutes. Again, I am not discounting the need to scrutinize licenses; I am simply stating that to completely dismiss a product based on them is overkill.
Right, but from reading what I have of the license, there's nothing to worry about if you are using it legally right? If you are using it legally, they come to audit you, they lose money, you have some laughs. Much less time lost there than in ignoring nice RAD tools. I understand the need to keep a watch on licensing, my problem (and why I posted initially) was in the number of posts saying "I'll never try Kylix now!@#".
Borland has been an established company for many, many years. I don't think they are going to turn into the Gestapo any time soon (but hey, I guess you never know). My problem is that (from what I can tell), the Open Source community spends way to much time worrying about what *could* happen, some day, under the worst-case-scenario. Am I the only one who thinks that, if this movement is going to gain true commercial momentum, the community's time could be better spent with actual production rather than philosophical bantering?
I have no doubt that I will get flamed to hell for this, but I have to say it.
If the Open Source community worried a little less about philosophy (leave it to the philosophers) and worried a little more about real world practice, maybe Open Source would *actually* gain momentum in the commercial sector. As it is, every other piece of ground breaking Open Source news is about the community crying about this license, defending that license, etc.
How does this apply here? Well, when was the last time this piece of legal mumbo-jumbo *actually* effected you, or anyone you know, or anyone you've even heard about? Have you seen any news lately about the "Borland Gestapo" breaking down someone's door? I'm sure there's something the whiners of the Open Source community (which are simple a subset of said community, I know there are those who believe in the practice of Open Source and the superiority of its products rather than simply the philosophy behind it) could find to complain about in *any* non GPL license. If these people could go one day without getting caught up in these lose-lose philosophical debates, and actually put these superior products to use (read avid Borland fan), maybe this community would start to make some forward progress in the commercial world.
Welcome to the real world folks. In the real world, companies are out to make a buck. If you are using the product (such as Kylix or JBuilder) legally, then what's to worry about? In a real world situation, I'm pretty sure the management of any legitimate company would smile on the increased productivity these products give, and frown on the lost time by sticking to vi simply because of some licensing technicalities.
Not to start a flame war or anything (muahaha), but can you please name for me some specific and provable inferiorities when comparing Object Pascal to C++?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for such a long post on what you "understand", though you haven't even tried the OS.
So the above AC gets modded 4 Insightful because he accuses anyone who has had a positive experience with Vista of working for MS. Then two people who have responded, basically rebutting his accusation, get modded Troll. Boy I love Slashdot. You guys are so unbiased.
Don't forget MSDN users/developers.
Ok. Time for a question. So you've programmed a screen to mimic UAC. Good job. Now, to do any damage, your app must request elevation from Vista. Uh oh, guess what. Time for a REAL UAC prompt. Now what?
If it didn't have some FUD right in the summary.
'Protected Media Path' (PMP), which is designed to seriously degrade the playback quality of any video and audio running on systems with hardware components not explicitly approved by Microsoft..
No. It doesn't. It does it for specific DRM content.
These restrictions only apply to DRM content, such as HD DVD or Blu-ray. User's standard unprotected content will not be faced with these restrictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Video_Path
This crap is getting lame. I'm seeing more and more unfounded "articles" on here because they have to make sure they get the stories Digg has. Newsflash folks. 99% of the articles on Digg are fanboy crap. This one is no different.
What's funny is there are already numerous comments here, but apparently NONE of those judging and commenting have actually tried what the article seems to be talking about. MSSQL Server 2000 and 2005 run *just fine* under Vista. There may be some minor compatibility problems and yes, the installer warns of these, but you can click right through that. Maybe some issues crop up if you tried to use it as a full fledged server solution as is, but for development purposed they work *just fine*.
Plus, this article is talking about MSSQL Server 2005 Express, which is the local, chopped up locked down version. The rest of the versions work just fine, plus there will be, soon enough, updates to increase the compatibility.
Please keep this kind of crap off Slashdot. It's fine to love OS and hate MS. But at least get your facts *sort of* straight. This is just way off the mark.
Cause if you don't need it, surely the rest of the world doesn't.
The difference is in the transparent border and title bar.
This MUST be a flame, but in case it isn't (and as an avid user of Delphi)... The Kylix uses wine for certain parts of the Kylix IDE. CLX, the cross-platform component library found in Kylix and Delphi 6, *is* a wrapper for QT. Projects built in Kylix do *not* need wine to run. They are native executables that utilize QT for the UI.
And such would be one person's opinion. I, however, being a Delphi developer, and someone who has used Kylix, feel that one day's disruption of work (if that ever happened, which, as I've said before, has about a 0% chance *if* you are using the software legally) pales in comparison to the amount of development time that can be saved in using a RAD environment such as Kylix. I used Linux for several years, and, until Kylix came out, had yet to see an IDE that offered a RAD environment anywhere near the Windows offerings (Delphi, Visual Studio, etc). So while everyone else can spend hours and hours writing their GUI's by hand, I'll be content to use our legal copies of Delphi to design functional and elegant UI's in minutes. Again, I am not discounting the need to scrutinize licenses; I am simply stating that to completely dismiss a product based on them is overkill.
Right, but from reading what I have of the license, there's nothing to worry about if you are using it legally right? If you are using it legally, they come to audit you, they lose money, you have some laughs. Much less time lost there than in ignoring nice RAD tools. I understand the need to keep a watch on licensing, my problem (and why I posted initially) was in the number of posts saying "I'll never try Kylix now!@#".
What? I've had an account for a while. See my post at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23789&cid=2568 327. Two months ago. Thanks for responding.
Borland has been an established company for many, many years. I don't think they are going to turn into the Gestapo any time soon (but hey, I guess you never know). My problem is that (from what I can tell), the Open Source community spends way to much time worrying about what *could* happen, some day, under the worst-case-scenario. Am I the only one who thinks that, if this movement is going to gain true commercial momentum, the community's time could be better spent with actual production rather than philosophical bantering?
I have no doubt that I will get flamed to hell for this, but I have to say it. If the Open Source community worried a little less about philosophy (leave it to the philosophers) and worried a little more about real world practice, maybe Open Source would *actually* gain momentum in the commercial sector. As it is, every other piece of ground breaking Open Source news is about the community crying about this license, defending that license, etc. How does this apply here? Well, when was the last time this piece of legal mumbo-jumbo *actually* effected you, or anyone you know, or anyone you've even heard about? Have you seen any news lately about the "Borland Gestapo" breaking down someone's door? I'm sure there's something the whiners of the Open Source community (which are simple a subset of said community, I know there are those who believe in the practice of Open Source and the superiority of its products rather than simply the philosophy behind it) could find to complain about in *any* non GPL license. If these people could go one day without getting caught up in these lose-lose philosophical debates, and actually put these superior products to use (read avid Borland fan), maybe this community would start to make some forward progress in the commercial world. Welcome to the real world folks. In the real world, companies are out to make a buck. If you are using the product (such as Kylix or JBuilder) legally, then what's to worry about? In a real world situation, I'm pretty sure the management of any legitimate company would smile on the increased productivity these products give, and frown on the lost time by sticking to vi simply because of some licensing technicalities.
Not to start a flame war or anything (muahaha), but can you please name for me some specific and provable inferiorities when comparing Object Pascal to C++?